wp1409.15.J.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1409 OF 2015
Shri Yogesh s/o Udaram Gokhe
Aged 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Prabhag No.1, Khapa,
Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] State of Maharashtra
Ministry of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] District Collector, Nagpur.
3] Tehsildar, Saoner,
Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur.
4] Circle Officer, Khapa,
Tehsil Saoner, Dist. Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.S. Kukday, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th APRIL, 2017.
DATE: 12 ORAL JUDGMENT 1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] On 18.03.2015 this Court had passed an order as
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:14:58 :::
wp1409.15.J.odt 2/3
under:
Issue notices for final disposal of the matter, returnable on 24.04.2015.
Learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The contention of Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, there was no agreement or lease for excavation of sand between the respondents and the petitioner. He further submits that there is no finding recorded in any of the reports that the trucks owned by the petitioner were found on the spot carrying or excavating the sand. He submits that there is absolutely no basis for imposing the penalty.
The respondents to file affidavit along with the reports, if any, on or before the returnable date.
There shall be interim stay in terms of prayer clause (iii) of the petition.
The petitioner to furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for an amount of Rs.3,41,88,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. If the security is not furnished within a period of four weeks, the interim order shall stand vacated without reference to the Court. 3] The respondent was granted time to file reply. Although, reply is filed by the respondent, the factual aspects urged before this Court do not find any response in the reply. Unless the findings recorded on these aspects, the final order could not have been passed by the respondents. It is a matter where fresh enquiry is to be made after hearing the parties ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:14:58 ::: wp1409.15.J.odt 3/3 concerned.
4] The petitioner has applied for modification of the order dated 18.03.2015 to the extent it directs furnishing of solvent security for an amount of Rs.3,41,88,000/-. It is urged by Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not own any property in Nagpur, and therefore, Tahsildar is unable to issue any solvency certificate. In view of the fact that fresh enquiry is required to be ordered by setting aside the impugned order, the question of furnishing solvent security at present does not at all arise. The order to that extent is recalled. 5] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the Tahsildar is hereby quashed and set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to conduct fresh enquiry, keeping in view the contentions, which are raised before this Court. After hearing the parties concerned, the matter be decided afresh. The petitioner to appear before the Tahsildar on 24.04.2017. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:14:58 :::